Members Silent Heart Posted June 16, 2005 Members Share Posted June 16, 2005 An ultra-rich Hendrix afficionado like Paul Allen would pay millions for Hendrix's genuine first Marshall! Don't sell it on eBay dude! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRIVING FORCE Posted June 16, 2005 Members Share Posted June 16, 2005 we wonder if he even knows about it!? how do you drop a line to someone like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Silent Heart Posted June 16, 2005 Members Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by DRIVING FORCE we wonder if he even knows about it!? how do you drop a line to someone like that? If I owned it and had to sell, I would inquire with Sotheby's or Christie's about selling my priceless item. I'm sure they would jump at it and handle any related marketing, for a large auction fee of course. {censored}, I would pay 10 grand for it right now, but if you took the offer, I would be seriously ripping you off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRIVING FORCE Posted June 16, 2005 Members Share Posted June 16, 2005 We have been and they do want to do the sale..... we just struggle to understand how they will earn so much money for the sale! if it sells for 1 mil then the auction house make about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Silent Heart Posted June 16, 2005 Members Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by DRIVING FORCE We have been and they do want to do the sale..... we just struggle to understand how they will earn so much money for the sale! if it sells for 1 mil then the auction house make about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Loghead Posted June 16, 2005 Members Share Posted June 16, 2005 Do you know what Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRIVING FORCE Posted June 16, 2005 Members Share Posted June 16, 2005 i should have clarified on my last point.... the auction house will take 10% from us and then add a further 15% for the buyer. this is why everyone would benefit.just picked up your post from email silent... my direct email address is available from our website if you are seriously interested. this conversation should have been going on in our own forum anyway...... it's so difficult to get these things started! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRIVING FORCE Posted June 17, 2005 Members Share Posted June 17, 2005 Originally posted by Loghead Do you know what Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JimAnsell Posted June 17, 2005 Members Share Posted June 17, 2005 did you guys see the web site for that dude who owned this head? hes got a subpage called "birds and bikes". where this horrible picture was found http://www.zen21375.zen.co.uk/Bikes/FIL1393.JPG (not work safe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Loghead Posted June 17, 2005 Members Share Posted June 17, 2005 Originally posted by DRIVING FORCE I understand all of the words quite well thanks. If you dont know who Marshall are then check out the link belowGiven all the photographic evidence it is very clear what we have.......Marshall Do I know who Marshall are or what the company is? Yes, I do. When I say, "who the {censored} are they," what I mean is, Marshall is not the sort of auditor who can verify the kind of claim that you're making. How does Marshall Amplification plan to provide the proper providence? They can't. The best that they can do is say, "There are a number of published photographs in circulation of Jimi Hendrix using an amplifier with similar damage during the early part of his career. The research remains ongoing, but Marshall Amplification plc can confirm that this amplifier was manufactured at this time & early indications show a Jimi Hendrix amp has come home." That doesn't prove squat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bro' FF Posted June 17, 2005 Members Share Posted June 17, 2005 Originally posted by DRIVING FORCE It is still owned by Rich Dickinson but it is for sale. He is in no rush to sell it but it has to go..... to expensive to keep! Dude, I hate to break it to you, but that isn't Hendrix....It's Prince! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Big Hair Posted June 17, 2005 Members Share Posted June 17, 2005 Originally posted by Bro' FF Dude, I hate to break it to you, but that isn't Hendrix.... It's Prince! LOL!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dr. Tweedbucket Posted June 17, 2005 Author Members Share Posted June 17, 2005 Originally posted by Bro' FF Dude, I hate to break it to you, but that isn't Hendrix.... It's Prince! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members paulintheuk Posted June 17, 2005 Members Share Posted June 17, 2005 Hang on... The article says that it was "probably ripped off by a roadie after Hendrix's death and sold for cash" or words to that effect... Doesn't that mean it's stolen goods and actually belongs to the Hendrix estate? Just confused by that point... Guess it's hard to verify anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRIVING FORCE Posted June 17, 2005 Members Share Posted June 17, 2005 It has been suggested that most of the equipment was sold by the roadies and other's who were owed money. We only have vague memories of the shop owner to go on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fret15 Posted June 17, 2005 Members Share Posted June 17, 2005 Hey, I don't know whether this has already been mentioned, or if you know (which you probably do), but I think there's an article in the new GuitarPlayer magazine discussing it a little. I'm at work, so I can't check right now, but I wanted to make that known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRIVING FORCE Posted June 17, 2005 Members Share Posted June 17, 2005 Thanks, i havent heard of that one! where is the magazine based? if you have it i'd love a scan! cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Loghead Posted June 17, 2005 Members Share Posted June 17, 2005 Unless the value is proven, this whole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRIVING FORCE Posted June 17, 2005 Members Share Posted June 17, 2005 Where do i start..... There has been several independant experts involved in this and all have come to the same conclusion as us. It is the real thing. There is little that can be done to control the press and what is written, the press pushed this further than we could have wanted or hoped! we are, after all, just a family with an Amp..... When did we ask a Million for it? i thought we were putting it in an auction or something.... Provenance has been provided using photographic evidence and audio (allthough we may have some more soon). dont forget, he only bought two of these early Amps and they sound very different to the later ones! also we have the reciept from 71 when we bought it and the paper it was advertised in..... I have only been researching this Amp for 3 months so i think we have done pretty well! for the insurance you just get guaranteed value insurance. i think that covers most of it.... I had actually forgotten we had the original reciept, will put that on our website later! Site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Big Hair Posted June 17, 2005 Members Share Posted June 17, 2005 marshall stack purple - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRIVING FORCE Posted June 19, 2005 Members Share Posted June 19, 2005 Originally posted by Big Hair marshall stack purple - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rch427 Posted October 30, 2005 Members Share Posted October 30, 2005 I just discovered this thread, and was fascinated by the exchanges here (not to mention by the listing itself). I had a similar situation a few years ago. At an estate sale here in San Francisco, I found an old guitar case in the garage. There was no guitar inside, but it was a nice old case, so I bought it anyway, for $20. After getting it home, I started looking at it more closely. I posted a picture of the case to an on-line vintage guitar board, and immediately got responses identifying it as belonging to a Rickenbacker, and dating to the mid-to-late '60s. There was an old mailing label taped to the outside of the case, addressed from Columbia Records to a DJ at what was then the main local rock radio station here in SF. I tracked down that DJ, and asked him if he remembered having a guitar shipped to him in that timeframe. He sure did: in 1967, the Who were in town to play the Fillmore and the Monterey Pop Festival. The Who's US label needed to get one of Pete Townshend's Rickenbackers to him, so they shipped it to the radio station, where the Who were about to be interviewed. OK, so that was pretty interesting! But I had a hell of a time getting in touch with the heirs to the estate, to see if they could tell me anything. I left many messages to try to get anyone to call me back. Finally, I got through to the son of the man who's house it was. He claimed that he would tell me everything he knew about that guitar case, but it was going to cost me $500. What a wanker! If he thought the case was valuable, why didn't he keep it? Or why didn't he just ask for a percentage of the sale price? For all I knew, he was going to take the $500, then say "my dad had the case, and now he doesn't. That's everything I know. And thanks for the $500!" He wouldn't see it from my perspective, and I wasn't going to give him anything up front, so that lead was dead. And so, I had a '60s Rick case that almost certainly belonged to Townshend in his prime. The guitar itself was probably destroyed on stage. But--without definitive provenence--it was just a case. I eBayed it with as much of the story as I could piece together, and it sold for $180. If I had only had proof that it was Townshend's case from the MPF, what would it be worth today--a few thousand? It sucks, but that's the reality of attributions. There are only 3 ways to authenticate something like that case or this amp: 1. The original owner has to be willing to step up and say "this was mine", like Clapton did with his guitars that Christie's auctioned. Not the situation with this amp. 2. There has to be absolutely verifiable, unbroken provenence, such as if this alleged ex-Hendrix amp had been given by Hendrix' stage manager to Hendrix' immediate family right after his death, and had stayed in their possession until now, AND Marshall had stamped a hidden serial number inside it that was unknown to anyone else, but was kept in their records (watch companies do this to combat fakes). Again, not the situation with this amp. 3. Someone with a huge reputation has to be willing to say "we guarantee that this is authentic". That's what Christie's and Sotheby's have to do when they sell something. When they sold Jackie O's or Marilyn Monroe's estates, they had to be willing to buy back anything that could later be shown to be doubtful in authenticity. And they weren't willing to do that with this amp. A bill of sale from a shop that claimed that 30 years ago that the amp had belonged to Hendrix is worthless, unless they can prove it had belonged to him, which they couldn't. A photo of Hendrix with a similar amp is also worthless towards establishing this amp's authenticity. If I had that photo and a Marshall 100, I know for a fact that I could replicate the amp in the picture, down to the tiniest detail. Stickers, broken nameplates, scuffs--these can easily be faked, and the photo and a few tools are all it takes. As was pointed out, the aluminum chassis, etc., could be faked as well. This auction smelled funny from the get-go. There is a slight chance that it actually was Hendrix' amp, but why was it pulled from the auction? Legal fears? If it was legit, why not auction it through a major house, like Christie's or Sotheby's? The seller's claim about their commission being too high is absolute rubbish. EBay takes a percentage too, but the amp (in its dubious state) would sell for a fraction there of what it would sell for in a legit auction house. So, if it sold on eBay for $20K and eBay took 5%, or it sold through Christies for $500K, and they took 10%, what's the difference? The seller still ends up with far more money in his pocket. His claims about looking out for the interests of the buyer are laughable. If he really cared about how much the buyer would have to pay in commissions, he could always reimburse them out of his own fat pocket, or donate the amp to the most deserving person, or sell it at a fixed price. Instead, he sits on the amp, waiting for the "right price", while at the same time, claiming he can't keep it because he can't afford the $25,000 for its insurance. Well, which is it? My conclusion is that the seller knew full well he couldn't verify Hendrix' ownership, and discovered he was in way over his head when he was deluged with questions and suspicions. If it's an out-and-out forgery, then the seller went about selling it all wrong, but that doesn't mean it *isn't* a forgery. Frankly, I doubt we'll ever hear anything about the amp again. Curiously, Marshall still has no mention of it on their website, even on their page about their reissue of the 100. If they were convinced it was the one they built for Hendrix, they'd be talking it up alread, to prepare for launching exact replicas. But at least the guy gets the ego boost of thinking he owns The Amp, and he's generated some buzz for his band, for whatever that's worth. The lesson to be learned here is--don't make claims of definitive authenticity if you can't back it up. You just end up looking foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wanky Posted October 30, 2005 Members Share Posted October 30, 2005 wouldnt it be smarter to sell it at a vintage guitar shop or vintage instrument auction place or something? hendrix's amp on ebay sounds like a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Big Hair Posted October 30, 2005 Members Share Posted October 30, 2005 Originally posted by rch427 I just discovered this thread, and was fascinated by the exchanges here (not to mention by the listing itself). I had a similar situation a few years ago. At an estate sale here in San Francisco, I found an old guitar case in the garage. There was no guitar inside, but it was a nice old case, so I bought it anyway, for $20. After getting it home, I started looking at it more closely. I posted a picture of the case to an on-line vintage guitar board, and immediately got responses identifying it as belonging to a Rickenbacker, and dating to the mid-to-late '60s. There was an old mailing label taped to the outside of the case, addressed from Columbia Records to a DJ at what was then the main local rock radio station here in SF. I tracked down that DJ, and asked him if he remembered having a guitar shipped to him in that timeframe. He sure did: in 1967, the Who were in town to play the Fillmore and the Monterey Pop Festival. The Who's US label needed to get one of Pete Townshend's Rickenbackers to him, so they shipped it to the radio station, where the Who were about to be interviewed. OK, so that was pretty interesting! But I had a hell of a time getting in touch with the heirs to the estate, to see if they could tell me anything. I left many messages to try to get anyone to call me back. Finally, I got through to the son of the man who's house it was. He claimed that he would tell me everything he knew about that guitar case, but it was going to cost me $500. What a wanker! If he thought the case was valuable, why didn't he keep it? Or why didn't he just ask for a percentage of the sale price? For all I knew, he was going to take the $500, then say "my dad had the case, and now he doesn't. That's everything I know. And thanks for the $500!" He wouldn't see it from my perspective, and I wasn't going to give him anything up front, so that lead was dead. And so, I had a '60s Rick case that almost certainly belonged to Townshend in his prime. The guitar itself was probably destroyed on stage. But--without definitive provenence--it was just a case. I eBayed it with as much of the story as I could piece together, and it sold for $180. If I had only had proof that it was Townshend's case from the MPF, what would it be worth today--a few thousand? It sucks, but that's the reality of attributions. There are only 3 ways to authenticate something like that case or this amp: 1. The original owner has to be willing to step up and say "this was mine", like Clapton did with his guitars that Christie's auctioned. Not the situation with this amp. 2. There has to be absolutely verifiable, unbroken provenence, such as if this alleged ex-Hendrix amp had been given by Hendrix' stage manager to Hendrix' immediate family right after his death, and had stayed in their possession until now, AND Marshall had stamped a hidden serial number inside it that was unknown to anyone else, but was kept in their records (watch companies do this to combat fakes). Again, not the situation with this amp. 3. Someone with a huge reputation has to be willing to say "we guarantee that this is authentic". That's what Christie's and Sotheby's have to do when they sell something. When they sold Jackie O's or Marilyn Monroe's estates, they had to be willing to buy back anything that could later be shown to be doubtful in authenticity. And they weren't willing to do that with this amp. A bill of sale from a shop that claimed that 30 years ago that the amp had belonged to Hendrix is worthless, unless they can prove it had belonged to him, which they couldn't. A photo of Hendrix with a similar amp is also worthless towards establishing this amp's authenticity. If I had that photo and a Marshall 100, I know for a fact that I could replicate the amp in the picture, down to the tiniest detail. Stickers, broken nameplates, scuffs--these can easily be faked, and the photo and a few tools are all it takes. As was pointed out, the aluminum chassis, etc., could be faked as well. This auction smelled funny from the get-go. There is a slight chance that it actually was Hendrix' amp, but why was it pulled from the auction? Legal fears? If it was legit, why not auction it through a major house, like Christie's or Sotheby's? The seller's claim about their commission being too high is absolute rubbish. EBay takes a percentage too, but the amp (in its dubious state) would sell for a fraction there of what it would sell for in a legit auction house. So, if it sold on eBay for $20K and eBay took 5%, or it sold through Christies for $500K, and they took 10%, what's the difference? The seller still ends up with far more money in his pocket. His claims about looking out for the interests of the buyer are laughable. If he really cared about how much the buyer would have to pay in commissions, he could always reimburse them out of his own fat pocket, or donate the amp to the most deserving person, or sell it at a fixed price. Instead, he sits on the amp, waiting for the "right price", while at the same time, claiming he can't keep it because he can't afford the $25,000 for its insurance. Well, which is it? My conclusion is that the seller knew full well he couldn't verify Hendrix' ownership, and discovered he was in way over his head when he was deluged with questions and suspicions. If it's an out-and-out forgery, then the seller went about selling it all wrong, but that doesn't mean it *isn't* a forgery. Frankly, I doubt we'll ever hear anything about the amp again. Curiously, Marshall still has no mention of it on their website, even on their page about their reissue of the 100. If they were convinced it was the one they built for Hendrix, they'd be talking it up alread, to prepare for launching exact replicas. But at least the guy gets the ego boost of thinking he owns The Amp, and he's generated some buzz for his band, for whatever that's worth. The lesson to be learned here is--don't make claims of definitive authenticity if you can't back it up. You just end up looking foolish. interesting post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRIVING FORCE Posted October 30, 2005 Members Share Posted October 30, 2005 Hi all,Long time since i have been here..... I have had a good read of the latest post from rch47 and think that maybe some of the details which were perhaps better known at the time have long since passed.When we listed the Amp on ebay originally we had no proof whatsoever that Jimi had owned it apart from our bills of sale from 1971 and the J.H.EXP still stamped on the top.You are right about the difficulty of proving/authenticating these old items whatever they are but due to the massive interest we decided we had to try. i personally spent at least 4 months researching allmost full time and we havent really stopped since but fortunately Marshall got involved early on (this is why it was pulled from the auction) to find the evidence we needed. They asked us to pull it so they could research and inspect the Amp to date it and try and identify it. Between us we found many identifying details and all the component dating matches up without doubt. many photo's of jimi using the amp have also been found.....if you have particular questions feel free to email me or post a question in our chat forum!did you know we gave the Amp it's 1st live performance in years last night?our website Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.